The unattributed incorporation of the work of others into an academic
publication is widely regarded as seriously inappropriate behavior. Yet
imitation is fundamental to many things that people do, even in academic
disciplines. This paper examines the range of activities in which academics
engage, including a detailed study of the authoring of textbooks. It concludes
that a more fine-grained analysis of plagiarism is needed, in order to
distinguish copying that is harmful to the intellectual process, and that which
is important to it.

INTRODUCTION

A great deal has been written about the inappropriate use by students of
material originated by others. The literature relating to plagiarism by
academics, on the other hand, is rather more limited, particularly within the
information systems discipline. The legal and ethical frameworks are far from
clear, and the tone of many articles is rather shrill. The Internet has
brought new opportunities for plagiarists, and new investigative tools for
their opponents. The time is ripe for deeper consideration of the issues that
arise in the context of rapid, wide-reaching, electronic publication.

Throughout the first few years of the new millennium, ethics within the
profession of information systems research has been the subject of a small
flurry of activity. A related case appeared in Communications of the
ACM (Kock, 1999), IS World established a Resource Page on the topic
(Davison and Kock, 2000), and ICIS panels have addressed various topics within
the area (e.g. Davison et al., 2001; Davison et al., 2003). Furthermore, the
Association for Information Systems (AIS) has studied the question of member
misconduct (Heales et al., 2002; George et al., 2003), including an overview of
the plagiarism literature by Heales (2003, pp. 59-65). Shortly afterward, a
paper on the topic appeared in MISQ (Kock and Davison, 2003).

The AIS subsequently published a Code of Research Conduct, a segment of which
is concerned with plagiarism (Davison et al., 2004b, together with supporting
documents, Davison et al., 2004a and 2004c). A key motivation for the research
underlying this paper was the articulation of concerns about some aspects of
the AIS Code.

During the review process for this paper, a paper submitted to an AIS-sponsored
major conference was found to be highly plagiarized. About 70% of the paper was
copied almost exactly, without quotation marks. The original paper was in the
reference list. AIS reported the matter to the author's Dean and the author
was later reported to have been subjected to severe punishment (AIS 2005).

The development of the argument in this paper was informed by literature
research, consideration of the many contexts in which academic publishing is
undertaken, and an investigation into allegations of plagiarism in a
textbook.

The paper commences with a brief review of plagiarism generally, to provide
context for the more specific concerns of inappropriate copying by academics.
I present arguments against plagiarism under the headings of pedagogical,
ethical, and legal, and outline several counter-arguments. In order to throw
light on the tension between the two sets of arguments, I include a case
study.

The paper suggests that balance is needed, and that conventional, narrow,
defensive, and proprietary attitudes to copying need to be moderated. The
boundaries need to be clarified, through community debate. I suggest some
constructive proposals that are intended to provide a basis for postgraduate
training, to assist individual authors, and to support investigations into
allegations of plagiarism. These relate to evaluation criteria for the
seriousness of instances of plagiarism, and appropriate processes and
enforcement mechanisms. I also make specific proposals for revisions to the
AIS Code.

BACKGROUND

This preliminary section reviews dictionary definitions of plagiarism, and
its manifestations in journalism, creative literature, entertainment, and
education.

Plagiarism resembles pornography, at least to the extent that people believe
that they know it when they see it, but seldom take the trouble to construct,
or to seek out a definition of the term. Dictionary entries include the
following:

To take and use another person's (thoughts, writings, inventions ...) as
one's own (Oxford);

To steal or purloin from the writings of another; to appropriate without
due acknowledgement (the ideas or expressions of another) (Merriam-Webster);

To appropriate or imitate another's ideas and manner of expressing them,
as in art, literature, etc., to be passed off as one's own (Macquarie);

To copy and pass off (the expression of ideas or words of another) as
one's own; to use (another's work) without crediting the source
(Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law).

The Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition identifies its etymology as being
the Latin plagiarius - a kidnapper, stealer, or abductor of a slave or
child, and the Oxford traces it further back to the Greek plagion - `a
kidnapping.' On the other hand, its coinage appears to be relatively recent:
the first occurrence identified in the Oxford is in 1621. It appears to have
been in common usage by the mid-eighteenth century.

Published syllabi for journalism courses pay little attention to plagiarism.
Professional Codes of Ethics generally mention it, but lack depth in their
treatment of it. For example, the current Code of the Australian Journalists
Association (now a Division of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance)
says, "Do not plagiarize;" and the draft replacement states, "Plagiarism is
stealing. Always attribute fairly." The exhortation in the 1,000-word Code of
the U.S. Society for Professional Journalists is a masterpiece of brevity:
"Never plagiarize."

Some corporate codes of conduct and statements by newspaper publishers vilify
plagiarists, e.g. "Plagiarism is one of journalism's unforgivable sins - and,
at this newspaper, a dismissible offense" (from the Grand Forks (North
Dakota) Herald, quoted in Journalism.org 2004). Some codes
recognize 'value-add' as a criterion or mitigating factor: "When other work is
used as the source of ideas or stylistic inspiration, the result must be
clearly your own work" (from the Detroit Free Press, quoted in
Journalism.org 2004).

In practice, the profession of journalism involves the production of a great
deal of text in a short time, with minimal time for research and reflection.
As a result, plagiarism is rife, and only some of the most extreme cases are
acted upon. This is especially the case in specialist newspapers and magazines
targeted at particular industries, whose copy in many cases comprises minimally
creative re-working of the content of media releases from suppliers. But the
problem can also afflict the great names in journalism, as was evidenced by the
departure of the Editor of The New York Times in mid-2003, as a result
of the paper's failure to detect and control fabrication and plagiarism by one
of its reporters, Jayson Blair (e.g. Hernandez, 2003).

In the various literary genres, instances of direct and substantial
plagiarism arise from time to time, often with serious consequences for the
author's reputation, and sometimes with a serious effect on their livelihood.

Less serious instances can still be contentious. It is common to hear
criticisms of works as being 'derivative,' by which appears to be meant
sufficiently similar in approach, style, and devices that only limited claims
of creative originality can be sustained. Much discussion takes place about
the re-use of plot-lines, and scandals surface from time to time. Yet many
plot-lines can be ultimately traced back to at least Shakespeare and often
ancient Greece. Even the concept of genre is related to plagiarism, to the
extent that all, say, crime thrillers, horror stories, and love stories conform
with stylistic norms.

Valentine (2005) describes a case in which the author of a 2005 short story
closely paraphrased the plot of a 1928 Agatha Christie tale (although shifting
it from Dartmoor to Tasmania, and changing the murder weapon from an ancient
dagger to an aboriginal flint), and closely paraphrased the text as well
(re-writing it in a different style, but, in a few places,
sentence-by-sentence). The author was perceived to have compounded her sin by
denying plagiarism, when it would have been easy to invoke such ideas as
`allusion' and `homage.'

This all suggests a need for accusers and accusees alike to keep a sense of
proportion.

The concept of genre is institutionalized in the entertainment world.
Barbara Cartland could re-write the same novel many times, and Mills & Boon
continues to commission very similar novels from successions of willing,
heavily mutually-plagiarizing authors. In television and multi-media
entertainment, copyright and trademark laws are used to enable genres like
'reality TV' and the many variants of 'Idol' to generate considerable
revenue-flows from licensing in many limited geographical areas around the
world.

A further consideration that blurs the concept of plagiarism is the
considerable extent to which artists of all kinds are applying modern
technologies to allude to earlier creative works. Cartoonists self-plagiarize
their previous depictions of individuals, and their and others' symbols for
events, attitudes, and values. Digitized and originally-digital photographic
images are manipulated with a level of professionalism that was seldom
attainable with 'air-brushing' techniques applied to silver chloride prints.
The 'sampling' of music has rapidly moved from oddity to established art form.
Recorded video is being manipulated to create surrealism and super-realism,
which rely for their impact on being at once close to and distant from the
original depiction of human experience.

With so many forms of communication making constructive use of copies of prior
works, it is only natural that questions should arise about the continued
relevance of longstanding norms concerning plagiarism, and even the notion of
authorship.

Music falls into both the creative and entertainment arts, and much in the
previous two sections applies to it as well. The `cumulative tradition,' the
inevitability of dependency on prior experiences, and the derivative nature of
a great deal of music are summed up in this quotation: "Abba learnt from the
Beatles and Phil Spector who studied Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Motown who
knew all the tricks of Irving Berlin, and Cole Porter who cut their teeth on
the minstrel shows and vaudeville musicals who were indebted to Stephen Foster
who got everything he knew from now long forgotten folksters, troubadours,
balladeers, doggerelists busking outside his window" (Valentine, 2005, but -
fittingly - quoting an unnamed critic in the BBC TV series `Walk On By: The
Story of Popular Song,' produced in 2001).

In music, but in other forms as well, the digital era is exacerbating this
reality of deeply nested appropriations and allusions.

In marked contrast with the relaxed attitudes to plagiarism in some
contexts, educators have been hardening their hearts against plagiarism by
students, particularly at the undergraduate level. A vast informal literature
has arisen in recent years, especially in the U.S. but also in some other
countries, stimulated by the ready availability of conveniently copy-able
sources accessible over the Internet.

Many papers deplore copying without appropriate attribution, often in strongly
moralistic tones, e.g., Standler (2000). Most institutions express firm rules
(sometimes called 'Honor Codes'), and some specify sanctions rather than
leaving them at the discretion of teaching staff. Sets of guidelines include
Bone (2000-2003), Harris (2002), and Northwestern (2003).

Student guidelines on plagiarism are binding on the educational institution as
well as students. When a staff-member at the University of Newcastle (N.S.W.)
failed students from an Asian campus because of plagiarism, the University had
the papers re-marked and passed. A formal investigation by a government
regulator concluded that the University's "desire to avoid any potential
adverse consequences [for] the University's offshore program [undermined]
academic standards," and that two of its academics had acted corruptly (ICAC
2005, p. 6). The case appears to have been a significant factor in the early
departure of the University's most senior officer.

On the other hand, some authors have questioned whether adjustments may be
needed in the current era of ready discovery of and access to materials (e.g.
Hunt, 2002, Hart and Friesnaer, 2004). A forceful exclamation of doubt is that
"despite all the work done in print culture studies, all the history of
authorship that demonstrates the historical contingency of categories like
plagiarism and originality, all the hypertext theory and
experience that demonstrates the permeability of all notions of the author
(whether on line or off), in our classrooms we continue to sustain notions of
plagiarism inherited from Romantic literary theory and current-traditionalist
rhetorical theory" (Howard, 1998). Moreover, the strong emphasis on plagiarism
in the Google era presents a moral dilemma for academics: standards are being
imposed on students, in some cases resulting in severe sanctions, in ways that
may exceed, or at least be perceived by students to exceed those that are
imposed on academics. The changed context demands re-assessment of plagiarism
by academics and the clarification of attitudes and policies that have hitherto
remained to a considerable extent implicit.

PLAGIARISM
BY ACADEMICS

The focus of this paper is on academic publishing. Research ethics have
been attracting considerable attention in recent years. Competitive pressures
have increased, both for positions and for research funding. Funders are
concerned that research be of high quality and perceived to be performed in a
responsible manner. Accusations of plagiarism need to be avoided.
High-profile cases have occurred in many disciplines, to the extent that
archives exist (e.g. Standler, 2000; Heales et al., 2002; Stoerger, 2002-),
even for prestigious institutions (e.g. HPA 2004-).

Serious cases have been publicized within IS and disciplines cognate with it,
including the recent case at a major IS conference referred to above (AIS
2005). In addition, well-known cryptography writer Bruce Schneier recently
reported the wholesale appropriation of a paper that he published seven years
earlier in Springer-Verlag Proceedings (Schneier, 2005). He asserts
that the authors in question have a track-record of plagiarism, and he was very
surprised to find that the ACM, the publisher of the offending article, has no
policy with regard to plagiarism, despite being both an academic association
and a major publisher.

Academic publishing is undertaken primarily by individuals employed in academic
posts that carry with them responsibilities in relation to both teaching and
research. The scope extends to those who are employed in other roles that
involve publishing in the formal literature, including full-time and part-time
researchers in tertiary institutions, government agencies, corporations, and
consultancies; and to non-employees who publish, particularly postgraduate
students and interns. The scope of this paper is defined not by the author's
employment, but by the fact of publication and the nature and target-market of
the publishing venue.

Most explanations of plagiarism in the literature examined during this project
are variations on the themes arising in the dictionary definitions. One that
usefully articulates several aspects is in Hexham (1992):

Plagiarism is the deliberate attempt to deceive the reader through the
appropriation and representation as one's own the work and words of others.

Academic plagiarism occurs when a writer repeatedly uses more than four
words [Author's note: presumably to be understood as 'more than four successive
words'] from a printed source without the use of quotation marks and a precise
reference to the original source in a work presented as the author's own
research and scholarship. Continuous paraphrasing without serious interaction
with another person's views, by way [of] argument or the addition of new
material [and] insights, is a form of plagiarism in academic work.

Plagiarism is the use (or 'appropriation') of pre-existing material by the
author of a new work in such a manner that it appears to be claimed to be an
original contribution by that author, in particular because of the absence of a
citation of the original work.

A further definition is significant in that it is provided by an
organization that performs a role similar to an industry association for
universities (AVCC, 1997):

To plagiarize shall be understood to mean the presentation of the
documented words or ideas of another as his or her own, without attribution
appropriate for the medium of presentation. ... A researcher or reviewer
shall not intentionally or recklessly ... plagiarize.

Analyzing the definitions and usage, I identify several elements of the
notion of plagiarism:

publication: the presentation of another person's
material, work, or idea. A pre-condition for plagiarism is that the new work
is made available to others; personal notes are not at issue;

content: the presentation of another person's
material, work, or idea. A pre-condition for plagiarism is that some part
of the new work is derived from someone else's prior or contemporaneous work;

appropriation: the presentation of another person's
material, work, or idea as one's own. A pre-condition for plagiarism is
that the claim of originality of contribution is either explicit or implied by
the manner of presentation; or the presentation may be such that the reader is
reasonably likely to infer the work to be an original contribution; and

lack of credit given: the presentation of another
person's material, work, or idea as his or her own, without appropriate
attribution. A pre-condition for plagiarism is that the reader is not made
aware of the identity of the originator, nor of the location of the original
contribution.

The notion of a 'deliberate attempt to deceive' has been intentionally
omitted from the list, on pragmatic grounds. If it were included, it would
necessitate inferring the state of mind of the alleged plagiarizer. Effective
administrative and legal decision-making is only possible if the criteria are
expressed in terms of observable phenomena. However, the question of intent is
revisited later in this paper as a relevant factor in assessing the degree of
seriousness of an act of plagiarism.

The AVCC definition explicitly recognizes that attribution is a relative rather
than an absolute concept, in that it may be achieved in different ways
depending on "the medium of presentation." I consider in a later section
various categories of academic publishing venues. Further, I will suggest that
many factors are relevant in determining whether an act of plagiarism is
sufficiently serious to require action.

ARGUMENTS
AGAINST PLAGIARISM

In the literature on plagiarism, a variety of reasons are advanced as to why
it (or some manifestations of it) is an evil that needs to be addressed. The
following sub-sections summarize the primary arguments that are put forward,
classifying them into ethical, instrumentalist, and legal aspects. A further
sub-section examines the relationship between plagiarism and copyright.

Most sources on plagiarism simply assume that it is wrong, and that everyone
agrees that it is wrong. It is common to see reference to 'integrity' and
'hono(u)r,' and to the classification of plagiarism as a form of 'cheating,'
which everyone agrees is wrong, without any need for discussion.

Where argument is provided, it is often along the lines that plagiarism is
morally wrong because the plagiarizer both claims a contribution that he or she
is not justified in claiming, and denies the originator the credit due to him
or her. This perspective has gained widespread international recognition in
the form of 'moral rights' extensions to copyright laws (although the U.S.A.,
with its strong orientation toward copyright as an economic weapon, has not
conformed).

Mark Twain's ethical perspective on appropriation appears to have been somewhat
more discriminating. He regarded the copying of his books for commercial
purposes as theft, whereas plagiarism was just 'bad manners' (Spender, 2004,
citing Vaidhyanathan, 2001).

"From the point of view of the abstract 'advancement of knowledge,'
plagiarism is not a particular problem, since the knowledge is disseminated
regardless of who gets credit for it. But from the point of view of individual
scholars, credit for ideas is vital in career terms and, typically, even more
so in terms of self-image" (Martin, 1994, p. 41). Plagiarism fails to
communicate linkages in the train of communal thought that constitutes
knowledge within a discipline. And it tends to result in accelerated
progression within the discipline for 'less fit' academics, to the detriment of
'more fit' academics.

More broadly, plagiarism may result in individuals having an aura of expertise
in an area that causes other people to pay more credence to their statements
than is justified: "a plagiarist simply repeats the words and ideas of others
without having mastered the basic source materials. ... Therefore, it has to
be assumed that the plagiarist is simply a sophisticated parrot who is really
fooling everyone by claiming to be an authority when in fact they are entirely
dependent on the authority of others" (Hexham, 1992).

When reading papers on the topic of plagiarism, it would be easy to infer
that it is illegal. General statements are not easy, because of the enormous
differences in the substantive details of laws, and even in the frameworks of
laws, in the many hundreds of jurisdictions throughout the world. However, I
offer the following observations.

The widely-repeated assertion that plagiarism is 'theft' is generally incorrect
in law, because:

theft necessarily relates to objects or defined value, rather than to
ideas or expressions of ideas;

theft involves the denial of the benefits of possession of those objects
or defined value; and

theft requires mens rea, that is to say intention by the culprit
to deny the victim the benefits of possession.

The claim that plagiarism is fraud is more tenable, but only in those
contexts in which the action is intentional, deceitful, and gains benefits that
would not have been gained without the action. Proving criminal fraud is
challenging.

In many common law jurisdictions, there is a possibility that plagiarism could
constitute the tort of 'passing off' (or, more to the point, 'reverse passing
off,' because someone else's goods and services are presented as one's own).
This is a civil rather than criminal matter, and hence lower standards of proof
are involved, but it is an ancient and arcane branch of law that has been
further developed in recent years mainly in commercial contexts.

Recourse against plagiarism is seldom sought through any of the channels
mentioned above. The most common ways in which complaints are pursued are:

through breach of employment contract, generally where the person is
employed by an educational or research organization;

through breach of the terms of enrollment in a course of education; and

through breach of the terms of a Code of Conduct administered by a
professional body.

In each of these cases, the extent to which copying without attribution is
actionable depends on the specific wording of any relevant contract and any
applicable codes, the dispute processes specified or implied, and the sanctions
that are available within the particular legal context.

Bartlett (2005b) chronicles the instance of a Dean at the University of
Missouri whose commencement address plagiarized a well-known academic. This
was discovered by another academic who knew neither party. She tripped over
the relevant segments after both papers were returned by Google in response to
a search for a quotation from Hegel about the slaughterhouse of history. The
Dean may find the quotation apt, given that he was then suspended pending an
investigation (Carnevale, 2005).

One further body of law requires more detailed consideration. Copyright law
provides the author or commissioner of a work with a small basket of specific
rights in relation to the work. There is considerable commonality in copyright
laws across the world because of their common origin in English law, and
because of the existence of multilateral conventions that are hono(u)red to at
least some degree by many countries. There are, however, very considerable
differences on matters of detail, and hence it is very challenging to make
authoritative statements that are accurate with respect to the law in most
jurisdictions. One attempt is WIPO (2005).

Among the basket of rights that constitute copyright are the powers to grant
permission to others to reproduce, to adapt and/or to re-publish material from
the work. But these rights are qualified. In Australia, for example, the
'fair dealing' provisions ensure that the large majority of relatively small
incorporations do not require what is called in Australia a `copyright
licence.' This only becomes necessary where 'a substantial part' of the
original work is to be incorporated (ACC, 2004a, 2004b, 2005). The U.S.
doctrine of 'fair use' is more extensive and extensible than the limited
Australian 'fair dealing' qualifications (see SULAIR, 2004).

Between the 1920s and 1990s, it became progressively more common for the
economic dimension of copyright law to be supplemented by so-called 'moral
rights.' In countries that have implemented the provisions, an author has the
right to attribution and to object to derogatory treatment of the work.

A successful suit for breach of copyright may or may not represent evidence of
some form of academic misconduct, but whether it would represent evidence of
plagiarism depends solely on whether the content was appropriately incorporated
and attributed. If those conditions are satisfied, then the action would not
constitute plagiarism, even if it is a breach of copyright. Moreover, the
existence of a copyright license does not in any way absolve an author from the
requirements of appropriate incorporation and appropriate attribution.

Even an express denial of permission may not be relevant to the question of
plagiarism. A breach of an express denial may be actionable in the courts, and
it might represent academic misconduct, although whether it would be relevant
to an allegation of plagiarism depends on the circumstances. Moreover, it is
clearly in the interests of academic freedom that authors, academic and
otherwise, should not be able to suppress analysis of their work by others,
simply by requesting that material from their published works not be
incorporated into other works.

In short, the presence or absence of permission to republish has no simple
relationship to the question of plagiarism, and in many cases may have no
relationship at all.

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

Most of the literature on plagiarism focuses on arguments against
plagiarism, although qualifications are found even in works that strongly
condemn plagiarism. This section draws attention to reasons why copying
without attribution can also be valuable.

From the point of view of the author of a new work, avoiding plagiarism
requires a great deal of effort. Far more is being written and published by
far more people than ever before in the history of the human race. It is
simply impractical to avoid repetition, uneconomic for every author to deliver
originality in every element of everything he or she writes, and a waste of
time and energy that could be applied to more constructive activities.
Moreover, much writing within a discipline is intentionally cumulative, and
hence the incorporation of prior content is an intrinsic feature of almost all
scholarly writing.

A counsel of perfection in presentation is unreasonable, and hence, "In judging
that an author plagiarizes[,] great care must be taken to ensure that careless
mistakes, printing errors, inexperience, and even editorial changes made by a
press are not used as accusations against an innocent person" (Hexham, 1992).

Even in relation to matters of content, it would be unreasonable to urge
attribution for every element of a work. For example, "[history] professors
often don't know from where they got a particular definition or description of
a well-known figure or event. As long as such writing deals with things that
are essentially public domain, even though at times specific wordings may be
very similar indeed, this is not plagiarism because it does not involve
deliberate fraud" (Hexham, 1992).

The much-referenced material provided in Northwestern University (2003) on
plagiarism is typical of the guidance provided to students: "Generally
knowledge which is common to all of us or ideas which have been in the public
domain and are found in a number of sources do not need to be cited."
Similarly, it is conventional for well-known proverbial, biblical, and literary
expressions to be incorporated without attribution.

Moreover, citation is not needed for ideas that could reasonably be perceived
to be generally known by the audience to which the document is addressed.
Generally speaking, the more novel and specific the idea, the greater the
importance of including some form of attribution. With well-known ideas, an
appropriate allusion to the originator may be as acceptable as a formal
citation (e.g. Newton's Laws in physics, Piaget in developmental psychology,
von Neumann in computing).

Unfortunately, the vagueness of concepts such as `public domain' and
`well-known' force authors and editors to make many judgment calls as to
whether particular information is well-known to the intended readership, or
sufficiently obscure to require attribution. [I include several tests of this
proposition later in this paper, enclosed by square brackets]

In addition to the impact on authors, readers are poorly-served by an
excessive emphasis on the avoidance of plagiarism. Citations clutter text.
Long reference lists take up space. Defensive wording makes for turgid style.
Editorial adjustments (such as omissions signalled by ellipsis (...) and
corrections signalled by square brackets and/or sic) interfere with
readability. Moreover, many academic writings are longer than strictly
necessary, simply because the author feels constrained to write defensively, by
pre-countering possible attacks from his peers.

In short, many of the recommended techniques for avoiding the suspicion of
misappropriation are dysfunctional from the viewpoint of most readers,
especially those reading for pleasure, for answers, or as part of a course of
study, rather than as a discipline.

Imitation has always been an important element of learning, and it continues
to be so. As a result, undue constraints on imitation stunt learning. At the
secondary school and undergraduate levels, the solution lies in skillful design
and wording of assignments. Questions that are capable of being answered
directly from existing publications invite plagiarism. Questions therefore
need to encourage candidates to discover and use the old, but then contribute
something new, e.g. 'Find and present three possible answers to the following
question, explaining in what ways the answers differ. Cite your sources.'

As author Dale Spender puts it, avoid inviting copying without alteration:
"the teachers or lecturers who ask their students - 'what can we
do about homelessness' - are becoming the
professionals of the digital age. In such an assignment, cut-and-paste can
only be the first stage" (private communication, October, 2004). Thompson
(2005) explains that he ended up not using a chapter that he had drafted by
taking advantage of unacknowledged sources. His reasoning was as follows:
"The amount of work it had taken me to fashion a well-crafted piece of
plagiarized text was only marginally less than the amount of work involved in
putting together something of my own that was at least as good." There is an
old security adage that the cost of compromising a security measure needs to be
about as high as the benefits that can be gained from doing so. In the digital
era, the challenges placed before students need to be devised with that adage
in mind. Moreover, marking schemes need to be consistent with that approach,
rewarding and being known to reward appropriate behavior and to penalize
inappropriate behavior. See also (Boehm, 1998; Howard, 2001; and Martin,
2004).

The same principles may have application even at postgraduate level and within
a profession or academic discipline. I further discuss this issue later in
this paper.

Excessive emphasis on the evils of plagiarism also works against innovation.
By 'innovation' is meant the deployment of ideas in the real world. It is the
phase during which an invention is articulated and integrated into existing
artifacts and processes. It involves adjustments to existing artifacts and
processes in order to accommodate the new idea. [This is common general
knowledge, and needs no attribution.]

Particularly in the information industries, innovation is incremental, because
it arises from people standing on the shoulders of others. As the much-used
maxim has it, "copying from one source is plagiarism, copying from several
sources is research." Or as it was re-stated by Biggs (1999, p. 129),
'conventional academic writing' is "ideas taken from multiple sources and
repacked to make a more or less original and relational type of synthesis"
(quoted in Bone, 2000-2003).

Innovation is heavily dependent upon freedom of movement of ideas and
information among many individuals and organizations (Dempsey, 1999). Monopoly
powers such as copyright and patent constrain that freedom. To the extent that
constraints on plagiarism prevent the flow of ideas, they too are harmful.
Balance is needed between the harm arising from plagiarism, and the harm
arising from barriers to the flow of ideas. Where the ideas of another person
are merely republished unadorned, one balance may be appropriate; whereas a
different balance-point entirely may be needed where the new presentation
embodies added value, through critique, extension, or application in new
contexts.

Plagiarism seems not to have been an issue in Dark Ages monastic scriptoria,
which copied not only Scripture but also secular works. The same can be said
about oral traditions, such as those of medieval bards and tellers of sagas.
[Again, this is all sufficiently well-known that attribution would seem
pedantic.]

Such traditions are not mere historical relics. Contemporary aboriginal
societies place value on the repetition of traditional stories. Larkham and
Manns (2002, p. 339-340), in the context of Martin Luther King's PhD thesis,
draw attention to "cultural acceptance in the American oral preaching tradition
... of widespread borrowing from unacknowledged sources."

The first authors of what was to become a mainstream genre -- novels or fiction
-- encountered criticism for uttering what the 'literary critics' of the early
18th century perceived as nothing more nor less than a sustained lie (Spender,
2004). The same accusation is being leveled at contemporary authors of
investigations of social issues that are fictional but are represented as
though they were true stories. The Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition and
the Wikipedia entry both suggest that "plagiarism is a concept of the modern
age and not really applicable to medieval or ancient works." Brynn (2002),
citing Mallon (1989), suggests "plagiarism came to be regarded as a problem in
the seventeenth century, when writing became an occupation."

Viewed another way, the strong bias against copying in academic work is a
western intellectual preoccupation. It appears to date from the
rinascimento of the 14th-16th centuries, and it appears to reflect
humanism's strong emphasis on the worth of individuals.

East Asian cultures are imbued with centuries of Confucianist pressure to
submit to authority, and place less value on individuality. Perhaps cultures
such as those are less concerned about what western European tradition calls
'cheating' and 'plagiarism.' A professor with close links to the Chinese
Communist Party, who was recently accused of "repackaging fashionable terms -
human rights, democracy, rule of law - for the party's ends," defended his
plagiarism in what might be interpreted as a culturally appropriate manner. He
hinted that "because of [the aggrieved party's] history of dissent, it was not
politically sound for the publishing house to leave his name in the
accreditation notes" (Gill, 2006).

Meanwhile, the 500-year-old tradition of individuality is under challenge in
two conflicting ways. Large-scale multi-media works (such as feature-length
videos, and games) have large teams of originators rather than `an author,' and
the large corporations that produce them are hyper-sensitive to plagiarism.
Yet, at the same time, the digital era has enabled sampling, adaptation, and
mixing on a scale and at a speed that was never previously possible.
Consumer-producers, particularly in the world of music, regard appropriation no
longer as an evil, but rather as an art form. The valuation that cultures
place on individuality is in flux, and hence so are the notions of `cheating'
and `plagiarism.' [The points made in this paragraph are sufficiently evident
in the literature and the trade press that no formal citations are needed.]

Context is also important. For example, many statements have been interpreted
differently since 11 September 2001. Words extracted from one work and
reproduced in another may have a quite different impact on many readers than
they did have, or would have, in their original setting. This can arise even
with quotations as short as Hexham's boundary test of four words: consider a
work that has the statement "I had a dream" uttered not by Martin Luther King,
Jr., but by Adolf Hitler, Kim Il-sung, or Osama bin Laden. The
re-contextualization is not merely artistic, but also potentially instructive.
The war against plagiarism must be waged sufficiently carefully that ideas are
not caught in straitjackets, but remain free to cross-fertilize one another.

Finally, it may be appropriate to consider the implications of post-modernist
perspectives, which assert that meaning is a construction by the reader, not an
invention by the author. A text is interpreted differently by each reader. An
instrumentalist interpretation of post-modernism (which may, admittedly, be a
conflict in terms) is that any value that derives is partly due to the stimulus
provided by the work, but substantially due to the perceptive and cognitive
apparatus of the reader. If post-modernism is anything more than intellectual
fairy-floss, is there sufficient justification for authorial monopoly on even
the presentation of an idea, let alone the idea itself?

In short, the approach one takes to judging whether plagiarism has been
committed needs to reflect a comprehensive appreciation of the perspectives of
different cultures over time, and different cultures across space. Deeper
insight into these issues could be provided by a literature on the cultural
relativity of cheating, but my searches have to date unearthed no such
literature.

CASE
STUDY: A TEXTBOOK

The preceding sections have identified tensions between purist and more
tolerant views on plagiarism. The resolution of that tension requires deeper
consideration of the realm of authoring and publishing by academics than has
usually been applied. In order to provide greater depth in one particular
context, this section presents a case study in which the author of a textbook
was accused of plagiarizing a number of works. I was commissioned to conduct
the investigation. I express the presentation below in the passive voice, for
ease of reading.

The vice-chancellor of an Australian university received a letter alleging
plagiarism in an eCommerce textbook authored by a member of the university's
staff. The textbook had been issued by a major publisher, and the staff member
was using it in a unit taught at that university. Although the allegations
were anonymous, they were detailed, and a preliminary investigation suggested
that an arguable case existed.

A full investigation was sought by an independent person with appropriate
expertise in the topic-area. The Terms of Reference were carefully negotiated,
in order to ensure that the university would get the information it needed in
order to take any further steps, that no imbalance or unfairness to the accusee
would arise, and that the interests of the investigator were protected.

Textbooks appear to be beyond the scope of the AIS Code. This is because the
Code "offers guidance in matters directly related to research and publication
of scholarly works ... [and] does not purport to ... guide members in areas of
professional activity such as teaching..." (Davison et al., 2004b, p. 9). A
textbook is generally not regarded as a scholarly work (although textbooks
designed to support advanced, postgraduate studies might be an exception).

The relevant definition of plagiarism for the purposes of the investigation was
that published by the Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee (AVCC) and
reproduced in section 3 above. This first required tests of the nature and
extent of any appropriation of content; second, of the nature and extent of any
claims of originality in the material; and third, of the nature and extent of
attribution. Finally, to the extent that evidence of plagiarism was found, the
investigation needed to consider its degree of seriousness, and in particular
whether it was intentional, reckless, careless, or merely accidental.

A process was devised, commencing with a literature search and analysis in
order to inform the process, establish the criteria to be applied, and guide
the assessment activities. Analyses were to be undertaken of the work and of
the various items that were alleged to be sources that it plagiarized. Further
testing was to be performed, with a view to establishing whether the instances
that had been drawn to attention appeared to be isolated, or to be indicative
of a wider problem. The findings of fact were then to be assessed using the
criteria established at the commencement of the investigation.

The literature search yielded a disappointing quantity and quality of guidance.
The scope of most references was narrow, and very few directly addressed
textbooks. The preponderance of the available papers addressed plagiarism by
students, and those that addressed plagiarism by academics were almost entirely
focused on refereed papers and scholarly books. Other researchers appear to
have conducted similarly fruitless searches: " ... where that leaves the
textbook writers I dare not contemplate" (Biggs, 1999 p. 130, quoted in Bone,
2000-2003). It was therefore necessary to undertake some meta-analysis,
interpolation, and extension of existing thinking about both assessment
criteria and processes.

A textbook is generally not authored in order to express original ideas, nor as
a means of communicating research results, nor even as a primary means of
demonstrating suitability for tenure or promotion. The intentions generally
are to make existing knowledge accessible, to address a particular market need,
and (less convincingly) as a supplementary source of income.

Moreover, a textbook is usually intended for a particular audience, such as
candidates within particular kinds of courses, within particular disciplines or
domains of study, and even at a particular stage of their studies (e.g.
introductory, intermediate, advanced undergraduate, postgraduate). The primary
function of a textbook is therefore pedagogical, and the criteria used in
assessing it need to reflect that fact.

One source offers the following: "Of course, historical knowledge is
cumulative, and thus in some contexts--such as textbooks,
encyclopedia articles, or broad syntheses--the form of attribution, and
the permissible extent of dependence on prior scholarship, citation and other
forms of attribution will differ from what is expected in more limited
monographs. As knowledge is disseminated to a wide public, it loses
some of its personal reference. What belongs to whom becomes less distinct. But
even in textbooks a historian should acknowledge the sources of recent or
distinctive findings and interpretations, those not yet a part of the common
understanding of the profession, and should never simply borrow and rephrase
the findings of other scholars" (AHA, 2003, bolding added).

The only other directly useful document located was Hexham (1992), which
includes the following passage: " ... many basic textbooks contain
passages that come very close to plagiarism. So too do dictionaries
and encyclopedia articles. In most of these cases the charge of
plagiarism would be unjust because there are a limited number of way[s] in
which basic information can be conveyed in introductory textbooks and
very short articles that require the author to comment on well known issues and
events like the outbreak of the French Revolution, or the conversion of St.
Augustine, or the philosophical definition of justice. Further, in the case of
some textbooks, dictionaries, newspaper articles, and similar types of work,
both space and the demands of editors do not allow the full acknowledgment of
sources or the use of academic style references. ... It ... therefore
seems necessary to distinguish between academic and other types of writing and
to ask what is the reader led to believe an author is doing. If a
book or thesis contains academic footnotes, is written in an academic style,
and is presented as a work of original scholarship, then it must be judged as
such and measured against the accepted rules for citation" (bolding added).

Given how trenchant Hexham is in his condemnation of plagiarism in scholarly
work, the distinction he draws between criteria for scholarly and textbook
writing is telling.

Due to the paucity of sources, I also referred to a sample of textbooks in
fields cognate with the textbook in question. Combining the various
considerations, I developed the set of criteria in Exhibit 1, against which the
allegations of plagiarism could be tested.

avoid citations intruding into the presentation in such a manner that they
detract from the primary pedagogical objective;

avoid not only express claims of originality, but also implied claims, and
language that could mislead the intended audience into inferring that the work
is original; and

provide ready access to works on which the author has drawn heavily.

Generally, incorporation should avoid the use of quotation marks, because
these intrude too much. On the other hand, the use of verbatim, near-verbatim
and close-paraphrase passages imposes yet greater expectations on the author in
relation to attribution.

In the case of generic attributions to well-known authors (e.g. Piaget, von
Neumann, Newton), and of well-known and well-documented quotations used in
section and chapter headings (e.g. Keats, Martin Luther King), it may be
reasonable to name the author, but nominate no specific work. Generally,
however, attribution should be achieved through one of the following mechanisms:

Harvard-style citation, perhaps without page numbers. This approach adds
to the length of the text, but minimizes the interruption of the flow;

numbered footnotes or endnotes. These have much less impact on the length
of the text, but are nonetheless disturbing to the reader because of the
uncertainty as to whether the note contains information of relevance, and hence
as to whether the break in concentration is warranted that is involved in a
diversion to the note;

no citation within the text, but attribution to the source in notes at the
end of each chapter or the book as a whole. A refinement to this approach is to
include within each endnote a key to the page number and line number in the
text where the source has been used;

mention of the name of the author at the beginning of the relevant segment
of text, or perhaps within the relevant segment of text, and inclusion of a
reference at an appropriate point elsewhere in the publication;

mention in the Preface or Introduction of the authors and works used as
sources during the preparation of the book.

Precise descriptions of all works to which attribution is given need to be
provided. The alternatives are listed below, commencing with the most
preferable:

a Further Reading, Recommended Reading, and/or Primary Sources List at the
end of each chapter or section, which contains all works that were drawn on
during the preparation of that segment. Particularly important references can
be supplemented with annotations;

a single Reference List at the end of the book, which contains all works
that were drawn on during the preparation of the book;

a Bibliography at the end of the book, which contains both works that were
drawn on during the preparation of the book and works that were not.

Applying the process and criteria to the case, I found the following in
relation to matters of fact:

the author's approach to attribution to sources, and the execution of it
were of very low quality;

the specific allegations were in part factually accurate and in part
inaccurate;

there was limited evidence of additional instances of incorporation;

there was little evidence of any claim of originality by the author.

The findings as to whether plagiarism occurred were as follows:

multiple segments of the textbook in question evidenced plagiarism as
defined by the AVCC;

it was not possible to determine with any reasonable degree of confidence
whether there were other instances of incorporation of content from other
sources.

The findings as to the seriousness of the plagiarism were as follows:

the primary problem was, within at least some chapters, the use to an
excessive extent of verbatim, near-verbatim, and close-paraphrase segments,
compounded by the very poor quality of attribution;

an inference of intentional plagiarism would be unreasonable;

an inference of reckless plagiarism would also be unreasonable;

the plagiarism was therefore not of the most serious nature;

the textbook in question showed ample evidence of careless plagiarism;

the plagiarism was therefore sufficiently serious to require action in
relation to both the staff-member and the book.

The vice-chancellor provided the staff member with the opportunity to
respond to the findings. The staff member found the report to be fair and
balanced and concurred that there was evidence of plagiarism in the book. The
University found that the staff member's conduct in the matter amounted to
misconduct and issued a formal censure, which played a significant role in the
staff-member's contract not being renewed at the end of its term.

The publisher suspended the book from sale when it learned that a credible
accusation of plagiarism had been made, and following the completion of the
proceedings, withdrew the book from its catalogue.

IMPLICATIONS

The evidence provided in the preceding sections has a range of implications,
which I present below in a series of sub-sections. The first identifies a
category of plagiarism that can be conveniently referred to as being 'necessary
or inherent.' The second relates to the question of the seriousness of the act
of plagiarism. Later segments discuss the investigation of allegations and
aspects of enforcement.

The case study of textbook plagiarism in the previous section has relevance
beyond textbooks alone. Parts of many other kinds of publications are intended
"to make existing knowledge accessible" and to "address a particular market
need" or "a particular audience." In particular, various sections of scholarly
works such as refereed journal articles and conference papers, theses, and
academic monographs, have an expository purpose, in relation to pre-existing
knowledge.

The preliminary sections of many works comprise the recitation of existing
bodies of theory, in order to set the stage for extensions to, criticisms of,
and/or testing of, that theory. If such recitations stray too far from the
words used by prior theorists, then the author of the new work would be subject
to accusations of misrepresentation or at least inaccuracy. Hence it is very
challenging to 'use one's own words' while being faithful to the sources.
Paraphrasing and generic attributions are therefore tolerated. The context in
any case implies that little or no originality is being claimed. There is
accordingly tacit acceptance of practices that would otherwise be castigated as
plagiarism.

In addition, papers commonly present explanations of the research method used,
and the rationale for the selection of particular techniques, and applications
of techniques, rather than others. Within each specific research domain, there
is a great deal of similarity among research methods adopted. This is
especially marked during periods of 'normal science,' when very similar studies
are undertaken in successions of marginally varying contexts. [An explicit
reference to Kuhn's work is probably superfluous.] There is also only a
limited research methods literature, and a limited number of key texts and
exemplars. (How many ways is it possible to phrase the statement "Responses
were gathered using a 5-point Likert scale"?). Hence there is tacit acceptance
of plagiarism in these segments of refereed works as well.

Further, the reporting of research results is constrained by conventions, and
by the commonality of inferencing techniques. ("The data supported all of the
hypothesized relationships, in all cases in a statistically significant
manner"). Because the scope for variation is limited, and close similarity of
expression is unavoidable, members of the discipline are permissive of what
might otherwise be criticized as plagiarism.

The instances cited above are all entirely apparent to members of the
discipline. On the other hand, they are seldom made explicit, and students
might be excused for not appreciating that academics have good reason to permit
one another latitude that is denied in students' assignments.

The
commonality of text reporting research methods used suggests an opportunity.
Perhaps the IS discipline has matured sufficiently that recognition could be
given to some fixed points in the research methods arena. For example, the AIS
could formally promulgate and publish statements about various research
techniques that are established and well-understood. These might be termed
`AIS research technique practice guides.' Authors could then invoke the
relevant document, declare their conformance with it, and limit their
description to aspects that represent departures from the mainstream technique.
Of course, this would not apply to works that adopt emergent research
techniques, nor those whose primary contribution is reflection on,
experimentation with, or testing of research methods. But repetitive text
could be avoided, and many papers could be shorter and simpler, resulting in
timesavings for authors, reviewers, editors, and readers alike.

There are many insufficiently careful discussions in the literature, which
make statements such as 'plagiarism is theft,' 'plagiarism is fraud,' and
'plagiarism is a grievous act.' As discussed in section 4.3, the first is
incorrect in law, and the second is in most cases unlikely to be correct in
law. The third may or may not be true, depending on the circumstances.

Acts of plagiarism vary in the degree to which they do harm and warrant
sanction. I draw on a variety of published works in this section to construct
a framework within which the seriousness of plagiarism can be judged.
Especially influential were Hexham (1992), Martin (1994), and Davison et al.,
(2001). I argue that five factors should be the primary determinants of the
seriousness of an act of plagiarism:

whether the plagiarism is intentional or accidental;

the nature of the new work;

the extent to which originality is claimed in the new work;

the nature of the incorporated material; and

the nature of the attribution provided.

This section provides guidance intended to be applicable in several
circumstances. It should be useful in the practical training of graduate
students, who can be challenged to explain how the material that they produce
should and should not be used. Authors should find it of value in ensuring
that they deal properly with material from other sources, and thereby avoid
being credibly accused of impropriety. It should also serve individuals and
organizations that need to evaluate accusations of plagiarism.

The AVCC definition underlines a feature of great practical importance to an
investigation into an allegation of plagiarism. It recognises that plagiarism
has varying degrees of seriousness, depending on whether it is judged to be, in
decereasing order of severity:

intentional;

reckless;

careless; or

accidental.

If an act of plagiarism is intentional or is reckless, then it clearly
represents misappropriation and demands sanction, in order to communicate to
the individual concerned and the community where the boundaries lie.
Accidental plagiarism is much less serious; careless plagiarism that falls
short of recklessness occupies the middle ground.

It is very challenging to determine intent, because it requires that the person
making the judgment claim to know another person's internal state. Hence the
test might be better expressed in terms of `evidence of intent' or `reasonably
inferred intent.'

A second factor of importance is the kind of work in which the copying
occurs. The greatest degree of concern arises in respect to works published in
refereed venues, and the least in unpublished and informal materials. I
suggest the following list as providing a set of reasonably distinct categories
of publishing venues. Further, I suggest that plagiarism in categories higher
in the list is generally more serious than plagiarism in categories lower in
the list:

At one extremity, a whole work may be appropriated, and at the other, the
appropriation may be of longstanding ideas. The following list is arranged in
what I suggest to be the appropriate descending order of seriousness:

verbatim or near-verbatim copying of:

an entire work (e.g. a book, book chapter or article);

a substantial part of a work (e.g. a section; or the diagram, image or
table around which an entire work revolves);

segments of substantial size (e.g. paragraphs);

segments of moderate size (e.g. sentences);

novel or significant segments of small size (e.g. clauses, phrases,
expressions, and neologisms);

copying of ideas that are highly original;

paraphrasing of segments of substantial size, without new contributions;

paraphrasing of segments of moderate size, without new contributions;

verbatim or near-verbatim copying of unremarkable segments of small size
(e.g. clauses, phrases, expressions, and neologisms);

paraphrasing of segments of small size, without new contributions;

copying of ideas that are somewhat novel;

paraphrasing of segments of substantial or moderate size, but which
include new contributions;

copying of the structure of the document, or of the argument, or of the
sequence of information presentation or 'plot';

copying of ideas that are long standing.

Where a formal work draws material verbatim or near-verbatim from a prior
publication, the strong expectations exist that quotation marks be used
wherever practicable, and that minor adaptations to text (e.g. changes of
tense, and omission of superfluous passages) be shown as such within the
quotations.

Appropriation may be a much more serious matter where the original work is
unpublished. This is because the original author lacks strong evidence of the
primacy of his or her claim, and hence is in a more vulnerable position in the
event of a dispute. Kock (1999) and Davison et al., (2004c) make the point
that brazen plagiarizers sometimes dispute priority even where the original
work has been formally published.) What used to be called `Departmental
Working Papers,' and are now more commonly referred to as `PrePrints,' can
assist in overcoming this problem, if they are entered into an
appropriately-designed institutional or disciplinary repository at the time
they are released.

Where a formal work paraphrases material from a prior publication, the strong
expectation exists that it contain a contribution. Examples of contributions
include additional evidence, extension of argument, adaptation or application
of a generic statement to a particular context, generalization of a specific
statement, clarification or simplification of explanation, the demonstration of
a relationship to other sources, and integration with other sources.

The final factor is the manner in which the author of the new work draws
attention to the earlier work. Clearly, a great deal of concern arises where
no attribution at all is provided; whereas a specific attribution is of far
less concern, even if imprecise. The following list is arranged in descending
order of seriousness:

no attribution to the work, but attribution to the sources cited in the
work. This is the most serious of all, because it not merely implies
originality by the plagiarizer, but actively seeks to deny originality by the
author of the uncited work;

no attribution to the work (which implies a strong claim of originality by
the plagiarizer);

understatement (in particular, a citation early in the incorporated
material, thereby implying originality of the remainder of it);

no attribution in the body of the work, but inclusion of details of the
source in a distant bibliography, e.g. at the end of the work;

no attribution in the body of the work, but inclusion of details of the
source in a reasonably adjacent bibliography, e.g. in a recommended reading
list at the end of the chapter;

generic attribution, e.g. mention of the author at the beginning of the
work, chapter or section;

specific attribution, e.g. mention of the author at the beginning of the
incorporated segment;

inadequately precise attribution, e.g. mention of the author, but without
sufficient details to facilitate easy discovery of the source;

specific, precise attribution.

The strong expectation exists in relation to attribution that:

the source is to be cited, including declaration of the author, the
document, and the location within the document. This can be effected using a
Harvard-style citation in the appropriate locations, or the much less reader
convenient approaches of a footnote number, endnote number, reference number,
or author and year abbreviation; and

a reference to every source is to be provided, including sufficient detail
to enable a reader to discover and acquire a copy of it. There is a strong
preference that the presentation of references conform with well-documented
specifications.

Appropriate forms for citations and references vary considerably, depending
in particular on the nature and medium of the source. Guidelines are available
from various sources, such as UCB (2004) and UWM (2004). Printed documents
have page numbers, whereas digital sources may not, or may have uncertain
pagination. With current technologies and standards, it is difficult to
provide a reliable indicator of the location of an excerpt within a
source-document in such cases as images, sound, video, and some digital text
formats.

When a judgment needs to be made about the seriousness of an act of
plagiarism, the five dimensions need to be inter-related with one another.
Clearly, the most serious forms of plagiarism are those that are extreme on all
counts, i.e.:

are intentional or reckless;

occur in a refereed or scholarly work;

include an express or implied claim of originality;

involve appropriation of substantial and significant parts of one or more
works; and

fail to provide attribution, or even evidence measures to obscure the
origins of the material or ideas.

Serious plagiarism is harmful to academic endeavor. Misconduct of that
nature requires action by an appropriate authority, typically the author's
employer, sponsor, or registration or professional body.

But it is also very important to recognize that many instances of plagiarism
are mis-judgments or errors that are appropriately addressed in simple ways,
e.g. through apology, amendment of the digital `original' of the work, or
publication of an errata notice. They should not be perceived or represented
as being `misconduct' of a kind that warrants disciplinary measures. Knox
(2005) reports on the handling of a misdemeanor by Australian novelist Murray
Bail, who included in the 90,000-word novel `Eucalypt' 180 words that were
"eight `direct lifts' from ... an out-of-print textbook `Eucalypts Vols One and
Two'." Bail explained how it happened, and asked his publisher to put an
acknowledgement in future editions.

Because of the complexities described in this paper, great care is needed
when formal investigations are undertaken into allegations or suspicions of
plagiarism.

I could locate in the literature few guidelines for the conduct of
investigations into accusations of plagiarism by academics. ORI (1997a, 1997b,
2003a and 2003b) are oriented to the bio-medical sciences, and in any case
plagiarism is a small proportion of the scientific misconduct that they are
concerned with. George et al., (2003) and some aspects of the documents
relating to the AIS Code (Davison et al., 2004a, 2004b) focus on investigations
by the editorial team of a journal. Kock (1999) and Davison et al., (2004c)
are written from the perspective of a victim of plagiarism. ICAC (2005, pp.
15-17) describes one University's detailed procedures in relation to
investigations of accusations of plagiarism by students.

Allegations are most commonly investigated by, or on behalf of, educational
institutions, and hence a process description is needed that has broad
application. Applying conventional business processes, I suggest the following
phases and tasks:

preliminary phase, including such activities as agreement
of Terms of Reference, search for and review of relevant literature on
plagiarism, initial review of the work(s) that are the subject of the
investigation, determination of the appropriate procedures for the
investigation, and preparation of the task list;

preparatory phase, including assessment of the allegation
and the information contained in it, search for and acquisition of works that
are mentioned in the allegation and/or (subject to the terms of reference) that
may be relevant to the investigation;

analysis phase, including assessment of the work, the
possible sources, the nature of attributions provided, and of the claims of
originality. This may need to be supplemented by further research into
appropriate forms of incorporation and attribution, including sampling of
practices in comparable publications and detailed consideration of specific
allegations;

reporting phase, including outline of the investigation
report, drafting of formal components of the report, submission of the draft
report, review of the draft report, and amendment and submission of the final
report. In order to ensure maximum clarity of the outcome, it is strongly
advisable that the following be distinguished:

findings of fact in relation to incorporation, attribution, and claims
regarding originality;

the criteria applied in determining whether plagiarism occurred;

analysis and formation of views on the accusations;

the criteria applied in determining the degree of seriousness of any
plagiarism that was found to have occurred;

analysis and formation of views on the degree of seriousness of any
plagiarism that was found to have occurred.

The terms of reference must be carefully prepared, in order to ensure that
the process results in the information needed to enable determination of the
matter, is fair to all parties involved, and is compliant with all relevant law
and contracts among the parties. Note too that publication of details about an
accusation and the accusee need to be handled with caution, because of the risk
of a counter-claim by the accusee, possibly on the grounds that the accuser is
the plagiarizer, and possibly on the grounds that publication of the details is
defamatory.

Investigation processes and reports need to reflect the nature of any
sanctions that may be able to be applied. An earlier section underlined the
limited extent to which actions in criminal and even civil law are likely to be
feasible.

The most common contexts are employment (where contracts may envisage such
measures as dismissal, demotion, delayed promotion, and reprimand and
notation), registration and licensing (where debarment may be feasible, or more
likely reprimand and notation), course enrollment (where cessation and denial
of credit may be available), and professional membership (where debarment or
reduction of status may be possible). Given the prevalence of plagiarism, even
of serious cases, it is noteworthy that few instances of the more severe forms
of sanction are reported. The role of moral suasion should not be overlooked,
but neither should it be over-estimated.

IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE A.I.S. CODE

There would be apparent advantages in academic associations adopting a
regulatory role in relation to academic standards generally, and plagiarism in
particular. A few show signs of wanting to do so, such as the Boston
Psychoanalytic Society (Bartlett, 2005a). But most lack the resources to be
able to sit in judgment (and to insure against the potentially expensive
consequences). Most also lack the power to apply sanctions. The American
Historical Association appreciates the problems, and has ceased investigating
plagiarism cases (Bartlett and Smallwood, 2004).

It would appear more practical for academic associations to hold back from a
regulatory role, but to provide a framework within which other organizations
can exercise control over inappropriate behavior. A vehicle whereby this can
be achieved is codes of conduct. Codes issued by professional bodies are
frequently referred to in disciplinary proceedings, and in cases before
tribunals and courts, and hence considerable care is warranted in the phrasing
selected.

The AIS has such a Code (Davison et al., 2004b). The current version does not
address all of the elements identified in this paper. It includes the
unqualified statement that "plagiarism is a very serious academic and
professional offense" (p. 10). The AIS Guidelines for a Victim make similar
statements: "plagiarism is a grievous act" and "plagiarism is fraud" (Davison
et al., 2004c, p. 17).

The problem with these statements is that the seriousness of plagiarism is
highly variable. The statements are true, at most, of only the most serious
forms of plagiarism. Moreover, an accusation of fraud would in many cases be
incorrect, and would be so serious that it could conceivably provide a basis
for a defamation action by the alleged plagiarizer against the persons and/or
organizations that uttered the accusation. The interests of all parties will
be best served by addressing questions of plagiarism very carefully. The
substantial amount of value in the AIS Code is at risk of being dissipated
because of the insufficiently careful phrasing of some parts of it.

On the basis of the evidence and analysis presented in this paper, the AIS Code
requires revision in the following ways:

to make clear that, while serious plagiarism represents academic
misconduct, many instances of plagiarism are poor professional behavior, and
should be addressed in a practical manner rather than through disciplinary
procedures;

to declare that, although the Code is addressed directly to AIS members
and other IS professionals, it is also a very relevant source for postgraduate
students, and for those called upon to evaluate accusations of plagiarism;

to provide references to authoritative guidelines on appropriate forms of
citation and attribution; and

to provide additional references likely to be of assistance to
professionals, postgraduate candidates, and evaluators of accusations of
plagiarism, including this article.

Further, the Association has merely approved the Code, and has not done
enough to ensure that it is applied generally across the profession. The
Association should require all AIS journals and conferences to apply the Code
to their contributors, and should communicate to all journals and conferences
associated with AIS the desirability of its application to their contributors
as well.

When revisions are complete, the AIS should draw the terms of its Code to the
attention of other academic associations in cognate areas, notably the ACM.

CONCLUSIONS

Extreme forms of plagiarism justifiably earn the opprobrium of all members
of a profession. What may be referred to as 'plagiarism of authorship' or
'appropriation of entire works' does occur, and the perpetrators need to be
confronted. However, "there are some dramatic cases in which word-for-word
plagiarizers have been exposed and penalised, but there are plenty of contrary
cases in which plagiarizers have fashioned successful careers ... for example
Martin Luther King, Jr" (Martin, 1994).

A decade ago, Martin (1994) examined the tension between the naive, standard
view that plagiarism is rare, and the realistic/cynical, revisionist
recognition that it is commonplace. To the concept of 'institutionalized
plagiarism' that Martin identified, the Internet and Web have added
'copy-and-paste plagiarism.'

Railing Lear-like against the iniquity of the storm will achieve nothing. A
mature conception of plagiarism needs to be articulated, the bad forms need to
be distinguished from the good, appropriate behaviors need to be encouraged,
and sanctions need to be imposed on the seriously bad. The AIS is the
appropriate body to perform that function on behalf of IS academics. This
paper has proposed enhancements to the AIS Code, intended to achieve those
ends.

The research method underlying this paper was largely contemplative and
argumentative. I sought out, structured, and extended a body of theory through
a combination of a literature survey and reflection. I tested boundary
conditions by means of a case study. The empirical value of the case is
constrained by its `convenience' nature, and the fact that the author was
directly involved in it. Despite the weaknesses in the method, a considerable
body of evidence has been marshalled to suggest that there are important
anomalies in conventional approaches to plagiarism by academics.

Stronger empirical methods can be brought to bear on the issues highlighted in
this paper. Studies could be undertaken of secondary data, such as the
incidence of accusations and media coverage, and the approaches to plagiarism
adopted in tribunals and courts. More disciplined interpretivist techniques
could be applied, including action research and grounded theory applied to the
texts of interviews and focus group discussions. Structured surveys and Delphi
studies of senior practitioners might also prove valuable, particularly in
throwing further light on the more obscure circumstances.

With competitiveness continuing to heighten, the importance of ethical behavior
by academics looks set to increase. It is essential that a clear and
comprehensive framework be provided, within which authors can judge how to use
and attribute existing materials and ideas.

ICAC (2005) `Report on investigation into the University of Newcastle's
handling of plagiarism allegations' Independent Commission Against Corruption,
Sydney, Australia, 30 June 2005, at
http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/files/pdf/Orion_pub2_97i3.pdf, accessed 17 January
2006

ORI (1997a) 'ORI Model Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Scientific
Misconduct' Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, February 1997, at
http://ori.dhhs.gov/multimedia/acrobat/mod_proc.pdf, accessed 13 November
2004

ORI (1997b) 'ORI Addresses Issues In Inquiries and Investigations' Office of
Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, February
1997, at http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/misconduct/inquiry_issues.asp, accessed 13
November 2004

ORI (2003a) 'Handling of Misconduct' Office of Research Integrity, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, at
http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/misconduct/allegations.asp#, accessed 13 November
2004

ORI (2003b) 'ORI Model Policy for Responding to Allegations of Scientific
Misconduct' Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, at http://ori.dhhs.gov/multimedia/acrobat/mod_pol.pdf, accessed 13
November 2004

Spender D. (2004) 'Plagiarism and Plausibility' Address to the UTS Academic
board, University of Technology, Sydney, 21 April 2004, at
http://www.gsu.uts.edu.au/academicboard/forums/papers/spender.pdf, accessed 13
November 2004

UCB (2004) `Style Sheets for Citing Resources (Print and Electronic):
Examples and General Rules for MLA, APA, and Chicago and Turabian Styles,'
University of California at Berkeley Library, 5 July 2004, at
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Style.html, accessed 28
June 2005

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the permission of the vice-chancellor for whom the
investigation was performed to use the material to develop the case study that
appears in section 6. He also thanks the referees and senior editor for their
valuable feedback and their many suggestions for improvement to the draft.

Author
Affiliations

Roger Clarke is a longstanding consultant with expertise in
electronic business, information infrastructure, and dataveillance and privacy.
His work encompasses corporate strategy, government policy and public advocacy.
He has spent 35 years in the IT industry, in Sydney, London, Zürich and
Canberra, as professional, manager, academic, consultant and company Director
and Chair. He holds degrees in Information Systems (MIS) from U.N.S.W., and a
doctorate from the Australian National University. He spent 1984-95 as a
senior academic at the A.N.U. He has held visiting professorships at
universities in Switzerland and Austria, and is currently Visiting Professor in
the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre at the University of N.S.W., Sydney,
Visiting Professor in Information Science & Engineering at the Australian
National University, and Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program at the
University of Hong Kong.

The content and infrastructure for these community service pages are provided by Roger Clarke through his consultancy company, Xamax.

From the site's beginnings in August 1994 until February 2009, the infrastructure was provided by the Australian National University. During that time, the site accumulated close to 30 million hits. It passed 50 million in early 2015.